Adjournment Debate

Kinsale College of Further Education

Deputy Michael McCarthy

I am pleased to be able to speak on the issue of Kinsale College of Further Education. I appreciate the opportunity given to me by the Ceann Comhairle to outline this important case to the Minister of State.

The college is operated by the County Cork Vocational Education Committee as a post-leaving certificate centre. It is currently under St. Brogan's College in Bandon, which is significantly removed, geographically, from Kinsale. For some time the college has been seeking autonomy and its own roll number. I am cognisant of the fact that this may require some additional resources, which is much to ask in the current economic climate. The social and cultural value brought to the area by giving this facility autonomy would far outweigh the monetary cost of such a move. Any short-term cost of an educational facility such as this would be offset by its dividend to society and the economy.

I am familiar with the area and with the college. The benefits of it are striking. The college was established 16 years ago to provide a range of post-leaving certificate courses to international students, mature students and early school leavers. Since then, it has earned itself a place at the forefront of research, teaching and innovation, offering students a pioneering catalogue of FETAC accredited courses which are developed with the cultural, social, historical and ecological context of the college's spectacular location in mind. There are courses in outdoor instructor training, tourism and travel, child care, office skills, business administration, permaculture and practical sustainability as well as theatre performance, multimedia production and TV and film production. In addition to the FETAC certification, many of the courses on offer at the college provide additional industry awards which are recognised internationally.

Places like Kinsale College of Further Education are crucial to Ireland's future development as a knowledge economy, offering specialist courses in many areas and skills that will be the lifeblood of 21st century enterprise and industry in this country and will play a significant role in getting us out of the current economic crisis. Granting the college autonomous status and its own roll number would help bolster its standing in the education community, enhance its appeal among prospective students and boost the image of the Kinsale area. I appreciate that we are operating in a very difficult economic climate and I know the Minister has a very restricted budget. However, I appeal to the Government and to the Minister and Ministers of State to look favourably on this request for autonomy. I ask them to look at the issues being addressed by this provider and at those marginalised by the status quo of the current education system.

I had the privilege of visiting the college recently. With the co-ordinator, I visited the various classrooms, met the staff and students and witnessed at first hand the vast array of courses available. There are also follow-on courses. For example, a BA course is available in Tralee Institute of Technology for students who meet certain FETAC requirements in some subjects. That is of enormous benefit.

For the last number of weeks we have been discussing, at length, the economic crisis and banking restructuring. This is one of the ways we can address that issue. Here is a policy the Government can effect. We can grant this college autonomy. It is not good enough that a college of further education is dependent on a post-primary school 15 miles away. The benefit to society and the economy speaks for itself.

Granting autonomy would not make any additional demand on the limited resources in the Department's budget. I do not say this lightly. I hope officials in the Minister's Department will examine the merit of this case. I know the civil servant who drafted the reply to this Adjournment matter was very cognisant of budgetary restraints. However, if we are restricted by budgetary restraints and refuse this request we are being penny-wise and pound-foolish. The costs arising from a lack of skills and knowledge available to the economy and to the education sector will make their own case in years to come.

This is an urgent case and I appeal to the Minister to examine its merit.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. Kinsale College of Further Education is managed by County Cork VEC to provide courses under my Department's post-leaving certificate programme. The PLC programme is a self-contained whole-time learning experience designed to provide successful participants with specific vocational skills to enhance their prospects of securing lasting, full-time employment or to progress to other studies. It caters for those who have completed senior cycle education and require further vocational education and training as well as adults who may not have completed the senior cycle but who are returning to education and who have skills and competencies which enable them to undertake the courses. There are almost 31,700 approved PLC places nationwide enabling almost 38,700 learners to participate in PLC courses. For each approved place, my Department provides a staffing allocation and non-pay capitation. The majority of these places are provided by VECs, in recognised VEC schools and stand-alone PLC colleges, but also in voluntary secondary schools and community and comprehensive schools, across the country. There are almost 200 approved PLC centres nationwide. Places are allocated to VECs and other providers on an annual basis following an application process and VECs are responsible for the further allocation of those places to schools and colleges under their aegis.

Separately, following an annual application process my Department approves PLC courses to be delivered. PLC courses are generally of one or two years' duration and are at levels 5 and 6 on the national framework of qualifications.

On the specific matter raised by the Deputy, Kinsale Community School was established in 1997 following the merger of the vocational school managed by County Cork VEC and a convent school operated by the Presentation Sisters. The VEC decided to use the premises of the former vocational school for the delivery of PLC courses. The VEC manages the delivery of PLC provision in Kinsale College through St. Brogan's College in Bandon. PLC learners undertake PLC courses in Kinsale College of Further Education but for the purposes of allocating staff and non-pay capitation, the learners are included in St. Brogan's College returns by the VEC to the Department.

County Cork VEC has sanction for 1,334 approved PLC places and has advised the Department that it has allocated 215 of these places to Kinsale College of Further Education, through Saint Brogan's College. Enrolment data for the 2010-11 academic year provided by schools to the Department, indicates that total PLC enrolment in County Cork VEC is 1,611 and that a total of 277 PLC learners enrolled in St. Brogan's College, which includes those enrolled in Kinsale College of Further Education. Our records indicate that the VEC offers one PLC course in St. Brogan's College. On recognition as a stand-alone institution, generally, to qualify for consideration, an approved allocation of at least 500 approved PLC places is required. Furthermore, sanction as a stand-alone PLC college would require additional financial and staffing resources in terms of teacher allocations and management structure, including principal and other posts of responsibility. In the context of the current budgetary situation, the moratorium on public sector recruitment and the employment control framework, it would be very difficult to provide these resources.

As indicated on 22 March 2011 in a response to Question No. 103, this issue is currently the subject of correspondence between the acting chief executive officer of County Cork VEC and officials of my Department.

The latest position is that my Department has sought a submission from the VEC setting out the benefits of stand-alone status and how this might be achieved on a cost-neutral basis. A reply is still outstanding and when it is received, my Department will consider it further. I again thank the Deputy for raising this matter.

Planning Issues

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I raise a matter specific to my constituency of Dublin South-East but which has relevance to all constituencies as it pertains to the operation of a semi-State company, Dublin Port Company. Dublin Port is a very important national asset and it is key to our economic recovery. If we as a nation are to do well, then it must also do well. It plays a very generous role in its community, financially and through other means. I have been to the port company and I have met the management. It is a very impressive operation with more than 4,000 people employed there. A total of 42% of the country's GDP goes through the port every year with 15 sailings every day between Ireland and the UK. The port is a vital strategic asset for this State and yet for nearly a decade it has ignored its obligations under the planning laws and has acted with something close to contempt in its dealings with local residents.

I will briefly outline the facts as I understand them. In 2002, three 30 m high gantry cranes were erected in Dublin port on the south quay of the Liffey where Marine Terminal Limited operates. No planning permission was sought at the time for the erection or the operation of these cranes. The cranes are located in close proximity to a number of homes on Pigeon House Road. The cranes produce considerable noise pollution, often through the night, given the irregular operation of the port due to tidal considerations. The level of noise pollution has been shown to be in excess of both the World Health Organisation and Dublin City Council's noise pollution limits. This has had an impact on residents' lives. Dublin Port Company and Dublin City Council have been made aware of this serious disruption on a number of occasions, beginning in 2004. More recent protests have come to nothing and it has come to my attention that the head of Marine Terminal Limited at the time the cranes were constructed is now the head of Dublin Port Company, the landlord for Dublin Port. Dublin Port Company has so far failed to engage appropriately with the residents, taking the position that the cranes do not require planning permission and offering minimal gestures regarding mitigating the noise caused by the operation of the cranes. This year, residents gained confirmation through the section 5 planning process that the cranes are not exempt development and that they required planning permission for their initial erection. This now raises a number of issues regarding the operation of the cranes, one being the question of insurance. Still nothing has been done and the cranes continue to operate through the night and every day. Given the continued operation of the cranes, residents now feel compelled to take the matter to the courts.

This is not a question of a group of people moving close to a busy industrial estate and then complaining about the noise or the activities emanating from that site; this is about the expansion of a business, a semi-State company, without proper observation of the laws of the land and in a manner that has shown wilful disrespect for its long-established neighbours. It is not right that people can be treated in this way by any company, let alone a semi-State one. It is not right that the residents of the Coastguard Cottages now feel that their only form of redress is through the courts, through a lengthy and expensive process for which they may well lack the finances and at this stage, the will, to take on. Dublin Port and its tenants have to do business and they have to do it as best they can if we are to prosper as a nation but they cannot do it by their own rules and oblivious to the lives of those around them. It is this kind of attitude at a national level and on the part of the previous Government that has brought us to the precarious financial situation in which we find ourselves today. Surely we can do better and we must if we are to honour the commitments and the pledges we made in the recent campaign and if we are to live up to the commitments stated so clearly in the programme for Government. We must meet the people's expectations of what politics is meant to be about and their expectations of what public representation is all about. They lack a voice and we are elected to give it to them. I urge the Minister to investigate this matter immediately as a priority and to use his good offices to help find a resolution for all involved to address the legitimate problems residents face on a daily basis near Dublin Port and to put Dublin Port Company back in good standing in relation to the law and in its dealings with local residents. This is a semi-State company and therefore it is our responsibility.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan)

I thank Deputy Eoghan Murphy for raising this matter and I will give him information regarding the issues he has raised. My Department has made inquiries of Dublin City Council on this matter and I am informed that the Marine Terminal Limited site on Pigeon House Road has a long established port-related industrial use dating back to 1975 or thereabouts.

Dublin City Council received a complaint in October 2010 that an alleged intensification of use had occurred at this site and that additional gantries had been erected some time in the past. I understand that this was the first planning complaint made about activities on the site. A section 5 planning referral under the Planning and Development Act 2000 was submitted to Dublin City Council on 10 February 2011 to establish whether the construction of three gantries erected in 2002 to the south of the site and the alleged intensification of use of the site constituted exempted development under the Planning Acts. The council concluded that the gantries referred to do not constitute exempted development and this was reflected in a decision taken on the matter by the city council on 9 March 2011.

I understand that the city council has formed the view that given the passage of time since the commencement of the development, it is statutorily barred under section 157(4)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 from taking any enforcement action to secure the removal of the gantries.

In so far as the intensification issue is concerned, this matter was considered in the section 5 referral by the city council but its decision of 9 March concluded that there was insufficient information submitted with the application to determine at that time whether intensification had occurred. The council was not in a position to take action in respect of the gantries on the basis of the evidence presented. While the file remains open, I understand it is not anticipated that any further planning enforcement action will be possible in respect of the current use of the site unless new information or evidence comes to light. However, there are existing specific legislative provisions for residents experiencing noise pollution. Section 107 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 provides local authorities with powers to require measures to be taken to prevent or limit noise from any premises, processes or works. The environment section of Dublin City Council is the appropriate contact point for reporting a noise nuisance of this kind. I understand that a recently introduced pilot scheme makes it possible to log an environmental complaint with Dublin City Council, on a 24 hours seven days basis, by phoning 1850 365 121. I also understand the council carried out an investigation in February 2011 on foot of noise-related complaints in relation to the site in question, during which noise levels of nine decibels above background were recorded. It is a matter for the council to consider what follow-up action is required in this regard.

It should also be noted that under section 108 of the EPA Act, it is open to any person or group of persons, including a local authority, to seek an order in the District Court to have abated any noise giving reasonable cause for annoyance. The procedures involved have been simplified to allow action to be taken without legal representation.

Water and Sewerage Schemes

Deputy Seamus Healy

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in future. I also thank him for responding to the matter I raise, namely, a request to commence and complete at an early date the Fethard regional water supply scheme in south Tipperary. People in the area, whose main settlements are Fethard, Strangan, Mullinahone, Killenaule and their hinterlands, have suffered for years owing to poor, limited and frequently interrupted water supply.

Water is a basic need in the 21st century but water supply to the area in question is interrupted regularly. Not a week passes without a break being identified and supply interrupted to families and businesses in the area. The mains are old and can be compared to strainers. At this point, repairs to the mains are a waste of time and public money. Even on the completion of repairs, it can take up to two days for supply to be reconnected to the entire area.

A number of schemes are awaiting commencement and completion. These are a scheme to construct a treatment plant, a further scheme for a mains replacement and a more short-term, interim scheme to provide a new bore hole for the area. I am aware that significant work has been done on this matter by officials of South Tipperary County Council and the Department and detailed communications between the council and Department are ongoing.

I ask the Minister to fast-track the schemes in question. The Department is awaiting tender documents from South Tipperary County Council which are almost ready and will shortly be submitted to the Department. I ask that the process be fast-tracked as soon as the documents are received. People in the area have been suffering as a result of an inadequate water supply for years. As I indicated, it is interrupted weekly and, in some cases, daily.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I thank Deputy Healy for his remarks and for raising the position regarding the Fethard regional water supply scheme. The scheme in question is included in my Department's Water Services Investment Programme 2010-2012 as a contract to commence in the lifetime of the programme. As the Deputy noted, the Department is waiting for further information and tender documents from South Tipperary County Council. Once these documents have been received, it will be in a position to consider them.

The Part 8 planning process was successfully completed earlier this year. The site investigation process is ongoing and South Tipperary County Council proposes to commence the tender process for the contract for the water treatment plants in mid-2011. It is envisaged that the contract could be completed in early 2013, subject to obtaining the necessary approvals from the Department as the process advances.

In September 2010, my Department approved funding of €9 million to allow the council to carry out mains rehabilitation on the Fethard regional water supply scheme ahead of the main scheme. These works are to be carried out under the water conservation element of my Department's water services investment programme. South Tipperary County Council is preparing contract documents for these advance works. The council expects that it will be in a position to go to construction in mid-2012 and the contract could be completed in the third quarter of 2013. The works, when completed, will ensure a continuous water supply for the Fethard area.

My Department's Water Services Investment Programme 2010-2012, a copy of which is available in the Oireachtas Library, sets out the plans for investment in major water supply projects. A comprehensive range of new water services infrastructure has been approved for South Tipperary County Council. The total value of contracts under way and those proposed for commencement in south Tipperary during the period of the programme is slightly more than €41 million.

It is important that the Fethard and Burncourt regional water supply scheme water treatment plants contract and mains rehabilitation works reach construction stage and are completed as quickly as possible. I undertake to give the matter priority when the documents are lodged with the Department.

Harbours and Piers

Deputy Brendan Griffin

Táim fíor-bhuíoch do Oifig an Cheann Chomhairle as ucht an seans a thabhairt dom an t-ábhar seo a phlé. Is onóir mhór dom bheith i mo Theachta Dála ar son mhuintir Chiarraí Theas. Tá mé fíor-bhuíoch do mhuintir Chiarraí Theas as an tacaíocht iontach a fuair mé san olltoghchán. Déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall ar son mhuintir Chiarraí agus ar son mhuintir na hÉireann ar fad.

I also congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, on his recent appointment. I am sure he will do an excellent job in his new position. The issue I raise is of great importance to local fishermen in west Kerry who are being burdened with unreasonable charges for using Dingle Harbour. The charges arise from the recent implementation of the Fisheries Harbours Centres (Rates and Charges) Order 2003. Of particular and immediate concern to a number of fishermen is charge No. 7, which relates to the use of a harbour by vessels not registered or licensed or deregistered hulks and derelicts.

One fisherman to whom I spoke recently has a vessel berthed at Dingle pier while he tries to sell it. The vessel was his only way of making a living for many years until salmon fishing ceased in 2007. Built in 1974, the vessel is perfectly seaworthy but between €10,000 and €12,000 would be required to bring it up to the required code of practice standard. As the vessel is not worth even the lower of these amounts, the owner decided to buy a new, smaller vessel and transfer the licence.

Since 1 January 2011, the owner has been incurring charges from the harbour board for having the older vessel berthed at Dingle pier. Thus far, these charges, which are solely for having the vessel berthed, have amounted to more than €3,000, a figure that will increase by €500 per week for as long as the vessel remains at the pier. Surely this is unjust given that the individuals in question have suffered a substantial loss in income in recent years.

I am informed that four fishermen who are trying to sell vessels berthed in Dingle are in a similar position to the fisherman whose case I outlined. They cannot move their vessels elsewhere as it would give rise to serious health and safety issues. If, for instance, they decided to move them to nearby facilities such as those at Ballydavid, they would have to berth the vessels at sea, which would present major difficulties during rough weather and storms.

This is a pressing problem for the fishermen in question because none of them can afford to pay the relatively large sums of money required to resolve the problem. Moreover, charges for vessels of more than 20 m can rise to more than €1,000 per week. I call on the Minister to review the current position to ensure that people who genuinely do not have any option other than to leave their vessels at Dingle pier will be shown some leeway.

There is also a problem with water and refuse charges at the harbour. I am advised that there is a mandatory annual water charge of €360 for those using the pier, although there is no tap there. Water is only accessible through calling an attendant at a charge of €25 per call-out. Local fishermen generally bring their own bottled water on board, yet they must still pay this charge. I am also advised that fishermen must pay a refuse charge of €480 per annum even though there is no facility for them at Dingle pier to dispose of rubbish. The fishermen in Dingle tell me that they bring their rubbish home, yet they must still pay the change. This does not seem like a fair system and surely it warrants review.

To add insult to injury, fishermen were recently issued with letters from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informing them that those in arrears would be at the mercy of debt collectors from now on. This is an insult to the honest, hard-working fishermen in west Kerry. These charges are also an issue at other fishery harbour centres around our coasts, namely Killybegs, Castletownbere, Skerries, Rossaveal and Dunmore East.

While the figures I have mentioned are relatively small in the overall scheme of things, it is an enormous amount of money for the individuals involved. One man to whom I spoke recently told me he is having difficulty sleeping at night while charges continue to accrue concerning his vessel at Dingle pier. I ask the Minister of State to give this matter his urgent attention in order to resolve it.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Shane McEntee)

I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coveney. I wish Deputy Griffin the best in his new portfolio and I hope that he will find something to work on in the following statement.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to deal with the issues raised by the Deputy concerning the difficulties being experienced by fishermen in west Kerry due to harbour charges at the Dingle fishery harbour centre. At the outset, I wish to outline the position with regard to my Department's responsibilities in relation to Dingle fishery harbour centre. The Fishery Harbour Centres Act 1968, as amended, provided the legal framework for the establishment of the six fishery harbour centres, which are located at Killybegs, Rossaveal, An Daingean, Castletownbere, Dunmore East and Howth. The Act was designed to facilitate the promotion and development of sea fishing together with the processing, packaging and selling of fish.

Dingle fishery harbour centre has been the most recent addition to the fishery harbour centres covered under the 1968 Act, as amended. Prior to its designation as a fishery harbour centre, it had been under the control of the Dingle Harbour Commissioners. The harbour commissioners formally sought the designation of the harbour as a fishery harbour centre. In 2007, Mr. Noel Dempsey, the then Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, issued the Fishery Harbour Centre (An Daingean) Order 2007, which effectively gave fishery harbour centre status to Dingle, as set out in the Fishery Harbour Centres Act 1968, as amended.

With regard to the fishery harbour centres generally, I am happy to say that my Department has in recent, and not so recent, years invested substantially in the upgrade and development of the facilities available to the fishing fleet at the fishery harbour centres, as we strive to bring the standard of facilities available up to a level comparable with the best available anywhere. This investment continues and I can confirm that in excess of €10 million has been allocated to the fishery harbours and coastal infrastructure development capital programme for 2011.

The Fishery Harbour Centres Act 1968 sets out clearly the mechanism to be employed in funding the day-to-day operational costs of the fishery harbour centres. All income received at each of the six fishery harbour centres is effectively lodged to what is known as the fishery harbour centres fund. That fund is, in fact, the only source of income available to fund the day-to-day operational and management costs at each of the fishery harbour centres.

Examples of regular expenditure that come to mind include harbour master and staff wages, electricity and fuel costs, cleaning and maintenance, etc. All income lodged to the fishery harbour centres fund is invested directly back into the fishery harbour centres.

The main source of income at each of the fishery harbour centres is from all users of harbour facilities, including fishermen availing of the facilities provided. The charges levied on fishermen who use any of the six fishery harbour centres are set out in the Fishery Harbour Centres (Rates and Charges) Order 2003. These charges are consistent from harbour to harbour and all income received is invested directly back in the fishery harbour centres through the fishery harbour centres fund.

The rates and charges order was published in 2003 and while I am cognisant of the current economic situation, I must also point out that there has been no increase in the charges levied since 2003. I can confirm, however, that my Department is currently engaged in a review of the rates and charges order and is working to balance the economic conditions faced by fishermen with the need to continue with the provision of all necessary services at the fishery harbour centres.

On finalisation of the draft revised rates and charges order, my Department will arrange for its publication. In addition, a public consultation process will afford all stakeholders the opportunity to comment on, and provide an input to, the proposed revised charges. My Department will welcome any submissions and observations from fishermen in west Kerry and, indeed, all fishermen and harbour users.

On a more general note, my Department facilitates a regular harbour users' forum at Dingle fishery harbour centre. This forum is well attended and provides for representation of all the various harbour users, including fishermen. My Department welcomes all comments and suggestions in relation to the management and development of the harbour at the forum.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 7 April 2011.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 6 Apr 2011